On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:44:34AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:20:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > To enable phase 6 parallelisation, we need to protect the bad inode
> > list from concurrent modification and/or access. Wrap it with a
> > mutex and clean up the nasty typedefs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > repair/dir2.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/repair/dir2.c b/repair/dir2.c
> > index ba5763ed3d26..a73a675b97c8 100644
> > --- a/repair/dir2.c
> > +++ b/repair/dir2.c
> > @@ -20,40 +20,50 @@
> > * Known bad inode list. These are seen when the leaf and node
> > * block linkages are incorrect.
> > */
> > -typedef struct dir2_bad {
> > +struct dir2_bad {
> > xfs_ino_t ino;
> > struct dir2_bad *next;
> > -} dir2_bad_t;
> > +};
>
> Just out of curiosity, how fast does this linked list grow? In theory
> we could hoist scrub/bitmap.c to libfrog and turn this into a bitmap,
> but that probably depends on how often we find inodes with bad link
> counts...? And admittedly, avlnodes aren't cheap either...
Never seen it in profiles, so I don't see it as problem we need to
solve at this point. The dir_hash code, OTOH....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
